« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Oopsie! »

Ending Medicare as We Know It

Our dear leader's recent budget speech claimed the the Ryan budget would fundamentally transform Medicare. As Perry Bacon noted in the Washington Post:
Without detailing his exact view of how he would change Medicare, he cast the GOP proposal to convert the program into one in which people get vouchers to buy insurance as a plan that would "end Medicare as we know it."
Medicare is an actuarially flawed program. The taxes collected from employees and employers is less than what it pays out. According to the New York Times, in 2009 it was estimated that Medicare would start running out of money by 2014. But that was before Obamacare rescued the program by slashing $500 billion of its future outlays. And how do you reduce the rate of payments? Experts will chose how much health care providers will be paid. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will be empowered with the ability to lower costs. As Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman puts it:
To keep spending at or below this target, the board would submit "fast-track" recommendations for cost control that would go into effect automatically unless overruled by Congress.
Feel better now? Experts will have perfect knowledge about how health care should be delivered. Perhaps they would decide which procedures are appropriate for loyal party members of a certain age. Think of how much money they could save if we only gave new hips to dues paying union members, or heart surgery to loyal Democrats.

The fact is that we can't keep Medicare as it is. It's broke. We are only arguing about how to transform it. Obama wants the experts to ration, and Ryan wants individuals to chose the type insurance they prefer. Do you trust 50 million consumers making their own financial decisions, or a dozen carefully chosen experts? What could go wrong?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41462.

Comments (102)

60% of people polled do not... (Below threshold)
Woop:

60% of people polled do not support Ryan's plan because the vouchers he's proposed will not keep up with the cost medical services, and eventually we will have seniors who are unable to obtain health care.

Ryan's plan leaves them out in the cold, as in stiff and dead....

So will the Republicans try to cram this down the throats of populace that doesn't want it?

You betcha! Count on it.

And the CBO says this"

But because commercial insurers cost more to run than government plans, the Wisconsin Republican's proposal to privatize Medicare starting in 2022 would actually spark a dramatic increase in how much the nation spends on healthcare for the elderly, according to an independent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Even as the federal government cut its own spending, seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets — or more than $12,510 a year, the CBO estimates. Altogether, the total cost of insurance would be higher.

Ryan's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the CBO analysis. But the congressman has repeatedly said that applying what he calls "free-market principles" to the insurance market is the best way to control costs.

"We can drive innovation, productivity improvements and performance in healthcare," Ryan said Tuesday in a presentation to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Under Ryan's proposal, seniors and others on Medicare would begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, to offset the cost of buying a private insurance plan that would replace the federal government's Medicare plan.

Wealthier and healthier seniors would receive less, while poorer and sicker beneficiaries would get more.

This voucher system — or "premium support," as Ryan calls it — would give the typical 65-year-old American $8,000 annually to buy a health plan, about the same amount of money that analysts expect the Medicare program would spend on that senior in 2022 under the current program.

But the CBO report says the money won't be enough. The cost to buy private insurance, plus the projected out-of-pocket spending that the 65-year-old would have to pay for medical care in 2022, would total about $20,510 per year, according to the CBO, which both Republicans and Democrats rely on to independently evaluate the effects of proposed legislation.

That would leave the senior to pay the difference, an estimated $12,510.

Everyone agrees reform is needed. Ryan's plan will kill Americans, and falls far short bf being viable and workable.

Don't get teabagged, seniors!

There goes Woop. Taking a s... (Below threshold)
914:

There goes Woop. Taking a shit on a thread again.


Hey, Woop what is the Presi... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Hey, Woop what is the Presidents plan? That's right just complain about the Republican plan and ignore his own commissions reccomendations.

I thought "Progressives" where for change? Why don't they want to change Medicare?

You'll have to excuse shit ... (Below threshold)
914:

You'll have to excuse shit for brains, or Woop for short. He's learned how to cut and paste but has yet to figure out how to make sense while bending over for his Obummasiah.

Medicare can't die soon eno... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Medicare can't die soon enough.

Its killing the American taxpayer and driving the cost of health care through the roof. Putting a goverment panel in charge if it? I wouldn't count on that fixing it, in fact, it would result in care being rationed out at a much higher cost to participants.

And Woopsie, you need to get a brain transplant or a crainialrectonomy.

Medicare funded a great sur... (Below threshold)
epador:

Medicare funded a great surge in the health care industry. It also initiated a huge intrusion into the patient/physician relationship in this country that is unlikely to ever recover. The Ponzi Scheme is dying and killing the system and threatening to drag down our country as it dies. I say kill it now. Its a painful treatment, but the disease is painful too.

Obama's plan is to tax ever... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Obama's plan is to tax everyone to death so his panel can decide who the money gets spent on.

Can I run up debt like the ... (Below threshold)
Constitution First:

Can I run up debt like the government? I suppose I could, but at some point the piper gets paid or I go to jail. If the government expect us to obey their laws, or any law, then they must show the laws are worthy of obeying, by obeying them themselves. Our "leaders" have played Santa Claus with our tax money for far too long now. What has been falsely given (not paid for) must be taken back. Whatever we did without before, and can't afford now, we can do without again. There is no more road to kick the can down. When the US loses it's AAA rating we won't be able to afford the interest on the debt, our credit will be crap, and that's where the real pain starts. Øbambi wanted us to be more like the rest of the (third) world, looks like he may get his wish.

Hey shit for brains' cut an... (Below threshold)
914:

Hey shit for brains' cut and paste a job creation flow chart for your affirmative clown in chief.

The only thing worse than M... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

The only thing worse than Medicare is Social Security, the latter of which will leave a deeper crater.

Ryan's plan is a pretty good starting point for dealing with the Medicare tragedy.

Obama's "plan" would make Stalin smile with approval.

It's amazing how mind re... (Below threshold)

It's amazing how mind reader Woop can draw the following conclusion from a poll:

60% of people polled do not support Ryan's plan because the vouchers he's proposed ...

The poll he's talking about asked people if they'd like Medicare to change. Surprise, most people, especially those who benefit from the current system that cannot continue without major changes or it will go bankrupt, want the money to keep flowing. Why didn't they ask of they want fries with that? For free, everyone wants it. If you compare a destroyed Medicare plan with Ryan's plan, that might be a fair fight.

Come on guys, easy on woop.... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Come on guys, easy on woop. Echo chambers don't think for themselves.

Hey woop! You want to explain WHY a lot of GP's are now REFUSING to take on any more Medicare patients? Where do you go when you can't find a doctor? Canada?

You and your Obamassiah planning on drafting everyone in the medical field into the armed forces?

Woop, Medicare doe... (Below threshold)
Hcddbz:

Woop,

Medicare does not cost less to operate then private insurance. The low administration cost of Medicare is born by doctors and insurance companies that need to fill out Medicare forms and claims. Also other part is that Medicare cost are lower because they use other factors to lower how much a doctor charges. These create an artifcle lower cost, however just like a forclum the heavy Hand of government lowering the Medicare cost rise the cost of insurances. The other aspect is tort reform medical malpractice also raise the cost of doctors and hospital treatment. Another factor in rising cost is medication prices due to other countries screwing the USA by stealing innovation. Lastly why does the cost of medical school increase by 10-30% each year?

Now all those factors do not take into account Obamacare which speeds up the cost of health care and private insurance.

So to control cost we need the Goverment
TO GET THE HE'LL OUT OF MY WAY. John Galt

By the way, none of you hav... (Below threshold)

By the way, none of you have actually proven a single statement of Woop's wrong. You've just basically thrown poo.

Secondly, from the article,

Do you trust 50 million consumers making their own financial decisions, or a dozen carefully chosen experts?

...the whole point is, the free market only works when people can do without a product or a service entirely. When people need that thing to live, that means the price will rise up to the absolute limit they can afford - *and then past it*.

The fact that too many old people couldn't afford the health care they needed to live, is why we got Medicare ***in the first place***.

Praying to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market to fix a problem that **comes from** the Free Market, is about as effective as hoping sunlight will cure skin cancer.

I think Mark Steyn said it ... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

I think Mark Steyn said it best:

Almost every problem facing the Western world, from self-detonating jihadists to America’s own suicide bomb — the multi-trillion-dollar debt — has at its root a remorseless demographic arithmetic. In the U.S., the baby boomers did not have enough children to maintain their mid-20th-century social programs. I see that recent polls supposedly show that huge majorities of Americans don’t want any modifications to Medicare or Social Security. So what? It doesn’t matter what you “want.” The country’s broke, and you can vote yourself unsustainable quantities of government lollipops all you like, but all you’re doing is ensuring that when, eventually, you’re obliged to reacquaint yourself with reality, the shock will be far more devastating and convulsive."

Do you understand, Woop? WE ARE BROKE. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference whether 60% of the American people want Medicare untouched, or whether 99.99% of them want it. Medicare is an unsustainable mess, a tidal wave of tens of trillions of dollars coming our way. Cuts are coming, and they are going to be deep and painful, and Ryan's budget doesn't go nearly far enough to stop them.

So whine all you want, you sad little attention-whore. Medicare WILL be cut, either by sensible changes now, or by the economic disaster that we're headed for.

What I said: "E... (Below threshold)
Woop:

What I said:

"Everyone agrees reform is needed."

But Ryan's voucher plan is a disaster. It won't keep up with inflation and over time more and more out of pocket will be paid by seniors.

According to the CBO:

But the CBO report says the money won't be enough. The cost to buy private insurance, plus the projected out-of-pocket spending that the 65-year-old would have to pay for medical care in 2022, would total about $20,510 per year, according to the CBO, which both Republicans and Democrats rely on to independently evaluate the effects of proposed legislation.

That would leave the senior to pay the difference, an estimated $12,510."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20110408

I'm all for means testing - get those rich teabaggers out of the system - they don't need it.

But seniors in need should not be sent off to the Paul Ryan Death Camps.

...the whole point is, t... (Below threshold)
jim m:

...the whole point is, the free market only works when people can do without a product or a service entirely. When people need that thing to live, that means the price will rise up to the absolute limit they can afford - *and then past it*.

That is completely wrong on the facts. In a free market people are able to choose whether or not the want to participate as you point out, but they are also able to choose who gets their business. If I don't like the treatement available at one doctor's office or clinic or hospital I mereley go down the street to the next one.

Your argument presupposes a monopoly situation which only exists when the government is the sole provider of health care, which is exactly what you advocate.

Note also how government decides to "cut costs". They just pay less for the service they are getting. Imagine if we all decided that we wanted to reduce the cost of gasoline or bread in that way. In most places that is called stealing.

But think if we all decided that we wanted to reduce the cost of government and just decided that we would pay less for it. Maybe there is something in the idea of reducing costs by refusing to pay when it comes to the government.

"Independent Payment Adv... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Independent Payment Advisory Board"

Nope, no socialism there. What was I thinking?

This is practically straight out of Atlas Shrugs. The only thing Ayn got wrong was his name is Cass Sunstein, not Wesley Mooch-- other than that pretty dead nuts accurate.

Wonder what Obama and Woop will do when we John Gaults and Hank Reardons go on stike?

You keep throwing that dero... (Below threshold)
914:

You keep throwing that derogatory term around for what reason Woop?

Oh thats it, you're a uniter like Barry Shmucking Lurch.

Praying to the Invisible... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Praying to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market to fix a problem that **comes from** the Free Market, is about as effective as hoping sunlight will cure skin cancer.

Jim X,

Expecting the goverment to do anything more efficiently and effectively than the free marktet is like expecting gasoline to be more efficient and effect than water at putting out a fire.

And just for shits and giggles: How exactly does the problem come from the free market?

I'm all for means testin... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I'm all for means testing - get those rich teabaggers out of the system - they don't need it.

While you're at it maybe you could cut my parents out of it too. They are multimillionaires and voted for obama.

They'd love to go without but the law basically forces them to use medicare.

And as for there being "Paul Ryan Deathcamps" I doubt it since his plan would not have government making the decisions. So your parents would be able to choose which death camp they go to.

Either way someone has to pay for healthcare. Your choice is to force everyone to have the government make those decisions on who pays and who gets treated. Ryan's plan lets everyone decide for themselves how much they want to spend and whether they go to a place where they get treated.

Someone's got to pay. The left can keep their head up their ass as long as they like but sooner ofr later they will have to figure out who is going to pay. They believe that some nameless faceless rich person will be taxed to provide them with all their needs. Don't count on it. The rich will simply change their behavior to reduce their taxes.

Woop"get the rich ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Woop

"get the rich people out of the sysetm...."

They paid into it. They were promised to get it back. You are talking about nothing but redistribution pure and simple.

How about we take all your stuff and give to whoever we want.

I have 3 simple words for you.


OLAF
OLAF
OLAF

the whole point is... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
the whole point is, the free market only works when people can do without a product or a service entirely. When people need that thing to live, that means the price will rise up to the absolute limit they can afford - *and then past it*.

Do you mean like Water? Food?
The strong desire for food has driven prices down when the Free market was to allow people innovate and increase the amount of food produced.
Look in the middle ages Strawberries were a luxury but with invention of the steam engine, refrigeration , gasoline, AC transmission lines we are able to deliver it people all over the world.

however prices are now going up for basic food stuff? Why Government interference. Subsidies, (they stifle innovation) Expert Boards (often time narrow minded people with no particle experience) Cronyism (Industries that have an idea that cannot compete force others out or make consumers by their crappy products) Litigation (regulations imposed so that lawyers get clients)

Look at MRI and dialysis i they were limited availability but through innovation and demand we are able to deliver it to more people.
Capitalism works best when it is dynamic. When Government tries to impose stasis on the free market that what cause the rise in prices.

The more heavily regulated government health care is the worst out comes are. Now when I talk outcomes I am not taking birth rates or life expectancy . I want to see survivability rates of disease treated.

Ryan's Plan (according to t... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Ryan's Plan (according to the non-partisan CBO):

"That would leave the senior to pay the difference, an estimated $12,510."

Fro rich teabaggers it's fine - they can take the Ryan vouchers and pay the extra $12,510 a year.

But for many Americans that just won't work. They'll skip medication or skip doctor's visits instead.

They'll die as a result of the Republican Plan to reform Medicare, if passed.

And let me repeat it again for the thinking imparied. Both sides agree reform is needed. It's a question of how, not if.

Ryan's plan is a non-starter. Surprisingly enough, I'm sure there are even some Republicans who, if pushed to a vote, would not sentence senior citizens to Paul Ryan's Death Camp plan.

They just aren't honest enough to admit it now. No surprise there.

The fact that too many o... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

The fact that too many old people couldn't afford the health care they needed to live, is why we got Medicare ***in the first place***.

Ah, is that Jim-speak for "It was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson as a way of buying votes by creating huge new unsustainable social programs?"

Here's the deal, Jimmy: health care is expensive. Good health care is really expensive. Especially at the end of life. Shifting the burden to the government does not change that. Medicare is headed for a cliff... and any time anyone wants to reform it so it will actually survive the first thing you lefties do is use it as a political weapon. You don't agree with Ryan. Fine. WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE? Do you even have one? Medicare needs vast and deep reform. Let's hear your ideas.

Praying to the Heavy Hand of the Federal Government to fix a problem that **comes from** the Federal Government, is about as effective as hoping sunlight will cure skin cancer.

"Praying to the Invisible H... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Praying to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market to fix a problem that **comes from** the Free Market, is about as effective as hoping sunlight will cure skin cancer."

You believe that the state regulation of health insurance and the mandates that go along with that is an example of the Invisible Hand of the Free market?

WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?</... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?

Quite simply, besides name-calling, they don't have one.

Want a real chuckle? Look at the cost projections of the cost of Medicare for the 1990's that were made when LBJ dreamed up this Ponzi scheme in 1965. Talking about missing the target by a mile.

Just imagine what the costs will be under current conditions when the full bloom of the baby boomers hits.

But not to worry. Barry and Nancy have a plan to cover 30 million MORE people by taking $500 BILLION from Medicare. And it will all still work.

Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid woop. Because when it comes right down to it, in the end, THE FUCKING NUMBERS DON'T CARE! Reality is going to be a bitch!

"You believe that the st... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"You believe that the state regulation of health insurance and the mandates that go along with that is an example of the Invisible Hand of the Free market?"

Exactly!

Government interference is why I have to pay for maternity care, drug and alcohol counseling, and a whole host of other services I have no need for. It's why I can't buy insurance from a company in Wichita Kansas when I live in Florida.

That free market?

It's also why you pay for U... (Below threshold)
Woop:

It's also why you pay for Unemployment Insurance even when you're employed, and for Disability Insurance when you not disabled. Not because you need them now, but because you might need them later, and even if you don't others do.


I'm praying for the Invisib... (Below threshold)
914:

I'm praying for the Invisible Hand of Cyberspace to lower Olaf's hammer of truth and justice on Woop.

Woop, UI and DI ar... (Below threshold)
Harmon:

Woop,

UI and DI are actually insurance. In both cases, money is being set aside to pay for possible future needs.

Irrespective of the government propaganda, Medicare as currently constructed is not insurance, it is an intra-generational money transfer plan. Taxes from income earning non-recipients are used to pay current costs. By placing some of the costs and many of the decisions in the hands of the beneficiaries, the Ryan's plan begins to move the program into a true insurance format. Will it ever become a true insurance plan? Doubtful, but the current state of affairs is demographically, financially unsustainable.

Your carping and moaning will avail you naught. "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" will not be denied.

Woop,Even if you d... (Below threshold)
Hcddbz:

Woop,

Even if you don't others do.

Do you not see that is the problem. If you took money out and that money paid the cost then it would work. The fact that multiple people have to pay into support one person makes it a Ponzi scheme. That why illegal immigration is tolerated to create more suckers to pay into the system. Which means eventually it will burst and there will be no money.

This country survived for most of it's history without SS and Medicare. The patient is sick we need to start the process of cutting the cancer out. We need to treat it, and put system in place that allows the body to recover.

Medicare has increased cost since it came into place.

Woop,What's the ma... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Woop,

What's the matter? Why don't you answer Evil Otto in #25?

It is a valid question -

WHAT'S YOUR ALTERNATIVE?

woops alternative is to fli... (Below threshold)
Olaff:

woops alternative is to fling poo


very simple

Woop, History of t... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
Here's how the free market ... (Below threshold)
sam:

Here's how the free market sets prices:

My brother had a private treatment done, and the doctor's office send him a bill for $1000, the standard insurance rate. He called the doctor's office to complain, and they responded, "Send us $400, and we'll call it even."

Insurance, both government and private, have distorted the pricing mechanism in the healthcare market.

"WHAT'S YOUR ALTERNATIVE... (Below threshold)
Woop:

"WHAT'S YOUR ALTERNATIVE?"

You mean... there won't be a Democratic plan put forth?

Obama has indicated otherwise, so I'm happy to see what the administration comes up with. I suspect that, at a minimum, we'll see means testing, which I've already said (twice, for the thinking impaired) that I support.

Sorry - Paul Ryan's Senior Citizen Death Camps and a no-go. I will work against Ryan's plan until a better alternative (from either side) comes along.

Saying No to Ryan is today's task. Doing Nothing in the short term is better than doing the wrong thing -- but you idiots just don't get that...

Woop,You're just l... (Below threshold)
Jim m:

Woop,

You're just looking like an ass (not that you didn't already) with your bs line about death camps. Nowhere was anything of the sort suggested and you make any argument that you might have had look stupid by including such a ridiculous, hyperventilating, hysterical remark.

I assume you are at least sometimes trying to make a point but you throw out what little credibility you might have had by saying it.

If you say repealing and nu... (Below threshold)
914:

If you say repealing and nullifying ObamaCare is nothing whoop then yes, done deal.

How much does Moron.borg pay you to be a sock puppet woop? Its apparent whatever it is, they are being short changed.

Woop"Obama has ind... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Woop

"Obama has indicated otherwise, so I'm happy to see what the administration comes up with"

You mean like he said that Gitmo would be closed in a year?

Like he said that if Obama care passes you can keep your own insurance?

Like he said he wouldnt raise taxes on anyone making under 250k a year?

LIke he said he had been to 57 states?

Like he said that there shouldnt be fingerpointing right before he points fingers?

Keep on believing that woop.

woop-"Doin... (Below threshold)
914:

woop-


"Doing Nothing in the short term is better than doing the wrong thing -- but you idiots just don't get that..."


hahaahahahaha,

After your ghetto jive highness has done the opposite for 2 1/2 years to the tune of -22 tri$$ion

For woop ignorance is bliss

Do you trust 50 million ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Do you trust 50 million consumers making their own financial decisions, or a dozen carefully chosen experts

Actually, I trust the 50 million consumers.

If I have 50 million consumers each making an independent choice then I know that some will make good decisions and some will make bad decisions but each decision will effect only one person.

If I have a dozen so-called experts making a decision most likely on ideological grounds and having no understanding of the individual person who their decisions will effect, I expect that they will very likely get that decision wrong and if so their error will effect hundreds of millions. Considering the fact that the so-called economic experts for obama are driving the country over a cliff economically I think that it's a pretty good bet they will screw up anything you give them a chance to.

So how bad do you want the price of failure to be? One person or 308,000,000?

Stick your so-called experts up your ass. The American public (present company excepted) is plenty intelligent enough to make a good decision on their own personal health care.

Here's a question for the l... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Here's a question for the lefties:

Would you trust your health care decisions to a dozen so-called experts if they were appointed by George W. Bush?

When a Republican gains the White House, if obamacare is not repealed it will be a panel of GOP appointed experts making those decisions for you.

Still like the panel of experts deciding your fate? Or do you just not care because you expect to get an exemption?

If I don't like th... (Below threshold)
If I don't like the treatement available at one doctor's office or clinic or hospital I mereley go down the street to the next one.

Uh huh.

And if you don't have enough money for any of them, you....do what exactly?

And if there is only one office or clinic in your town then you...do what exactly?

Or if you're too poor to own a car? Or too old to safely drive?

Expecting the gove... (Below threshold)
Expecting the goverment to do anything more efficiently and effectively than the free marktet is like expecting gasoline to be more efficient and effect than water at putting out a fire.

Sure, except for the interstate road system, the military, the fire department, the police, Social Security....all of which the government does because before, when only the free market was in charge, there was nothing or there was a disaster.

All I have ever wanted w... (Below threshold)
Will:

All I have ever wanted was a plan with separate deductibles ($4K for services and $1k for prescriptions) that would provide coverage for one year from the date of the first payment toward the deductible rather than from the policy date, with the option to drop earlier payments and delay the start of that coverage. Why? Because I hate the idea that I could be hospitalized with an injury or sickness and be hit with the deductibles twice, before I have had any chance to recover, Because it should be inexpensive and because I the policy holder could save for real emergencies. Unfortunately insurance companies just laugh at me when I describe what I want.
Why bother with the patients wants and needs when they don't make the money decisions? It never ceases to amaze me how expensive things can become when others claim they are helping you pay for it, be it the government or an employer.
No I'm not wealthy, but I know how to save and live within my means. I know this wouldn't help those with chronic problems or pre-existing conditions, but it would be a start at curbing the rampant inflation of medical costs.

"Doing Nothing in the sh... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Doing Nothing in the short term is better than doing the wrong thing"

That's not how our government operates. They have, for decades on end now, done nothing. They did the wrong thing to begin with and that's how it's stayed ever since. And the ONLY reason the Democrats are even considering that MAYBE something should be done is because of the outcry of the people.

"...and even if you don't others do."

My husband an I paid enough in taxes to support another family of four with a mortgage. My own entire gross pay and then some went to federal taxes. There's something very wrong when two people are taking care of six. And it's worse than that. We also subsidize my daughter and her two children so you can add more to the list.

There's no way the private ... (Below threshold)
Chico:

There's no way the private insurance companies are going to insure decrepit old geezers with preexisting conditions at any price, let alone for whatever amount the paltry "voucher" Ryan's going to offer.

Ryan is a true believer of the Cult of Objectivism, worshiping Ayn Rand. To Ryan, the old, crippled and retarded are "parasites" sucking the wealth of "John Galt" and the "producers," so Ryan wants to cut the top marginal tax rate to 25%; to hell with crippled children, disabled vets, and orphans.

Graf von Bismarck recognized that you can't keep people starving and degraded, which is why he introduced welfare and health care in Prussia. If you don't do something to help the less fortunate, those left behind by the financial "geniuses" rob and riot and it degrades social peace.

We've already exported almost all of the well-paying manufacturing jobs that less intelligent people could do and get a good salary for. We've also "privatized" all of the government cleaning and service jobs that low-IQ and mildly disabled people could make a living off of. The private contractors split the full-time jobs with health care bennies into part time jobs for illegal immigrants making minimum wage (if that much).

Now we've got three-quarters of the population working three jobs each, or out of work, or flat out unemployable in the "knowledge economy." That's cool, though, because the top 1% have more than doubled their share of the U.S. GDP, while wages for everyone else stayed flat.

A-holes like Ryan and his buddies at the "Vampire Squid" Goldman Sachs and the like are bleeding the USA dry. Abolishing Medicare will be just another looting spree for them and their subsidiaries in the private medical insurance biz.

The USA could also save a few hundred billion or a trillion a year by ending these three demented wars and cutting the worldwide network of bases. There are bases in the UK, Germany, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Turkey, and Romania - that's in Europe alone.

Chico,Study a bit ... (Below threshold)
Harmon:

Chico,

Study a bit about economics and tax policy and you may get an idea of how and why these things really happened. Yes the Republicans are partly to blame. The Democrats even more so. But the real culprits are benighted fools who want it all now and want someone else to pay for it.

In the long run Rand had it right. The only long term driver of any effective economic system is enlightened self interest. Always has been, always will be. Wishing it were otherwise is futile.

Could say a lot more, but this isn't my bandwidth. Try sucking it up, stop complaining about others and do for yourself what is right for yourself. It might even make you a happier person, and isn't that really all that matters?

JIm x ,Obviously y... (Below threshold)
jim m:

JIm x ,

Obviously you've never been to Chicago where they sold off the Chicago Skyway because the government couldn't run it and maintain it. Under private management it is operating at a profit, getting desperately needed repairs and becoming a useful and used transportation alternative.

Don't give me this crap that only the government can manage the interstate because I've seen how much better private concerns are able to do that very same job.

And what you miss about competition is that it keeps the prices down to the consumer. Your default belief is that competition increases prices beyond what consumers can afford which is the opposite of every example in history. Deregulation of the airline industry meant that people could afford to fly. The big family vacation used to be driving out west and now they fly.

Deregulation of the phone industry meant competition that resulted in lower prices for everyone and spurred innovation that drove dial phones out of the market and opened the door to the mobile phone industry. If the government were still regulating the phone business as a public utility you would be paying rent on an old dial phone that you could only get from Ma Bell, you wouldn't be able to afford a cell phone because mobile phones are only for the very wealthy, The iPhone would not exist nor would mobile computing.

Government breeds stagnation because it rewards the status quo. There is no incentive for innovation. There is no incentive to keep costs down. When a government run business is running out of money they cut services they don't look to find efficiencies and cut costs. Like I said before the government doesn't look to improve things to reduce costs they just decide to pay less for it.

Chico"To Ryan, the... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

"To Ryan, the old, crippled and retarded are "parasites" sucking the wealth of "John Galt" and the "producers, "

Vs

Obama

"Well you just might to give granny some pain pills instead"

ChicoWant to know ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

Want to know why a lot of manufacturing jobs got moved overseas.

It is called Unions.

You have to pay too much for people to do too little work. You cant fire them without an act of Congress. Their wages and benefits are way too much for the work they do.

Dont believe me? Look at the teachers unions. A lot are making $60k+ a year for 9 months work. 20 days sick leave, plus vacation time. A sweet gig if you can get it. You only have to pay those union dues so they can keep giving the money to the dems to keep making contracts that favor the unions.


Woop,non of what y... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Woop,

non of what you quoted in any CBO report ... you are just making shit up on the fly ...

RM,I'll note that ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

RM,

I'll note that Chico, woop and Jim X provide all sorts of accusations of what Ryan and conservatives want to do but they are countered with the actual words of obama.

They fight fact with supposition. A losing battle.

retired miitary,Fo... (Below threshold)
Chico:

retired miitary,

For Ryan, Walker and these rich oligarchs, the pay is always too much for the work "they" do.

Now for me, "they" are your average American middle class to working class person. You know, the people that used to have decent wages and benefits before the business class lost all sense of patriotism or social responsibility.

But for "us" and our cronies, the sky's the limit - investment banker bonuses in the millions, $700 an hour for corporate lawyers, $10 million annual salary for CEOs, with more than that in stock options.

Teachers start from between around $25,000 - $35,000. Not that much money, compared to other pay of college grads. After ten, twenty, thirty years, yeah they work up to $60 - 100,000. So what? You're retired military, you know that even a 75B/71L clerk type can do twenty years, make $69,000 a year as an E-7, and then get a check for $2300 a month for life from age 38 on. I say, good for them.

If per capita Gross Domestic Product -- GDP divided by total population, not just total working population -- in the USA is $47,284, $60,000 for a teacher supporting a family isn't that much.

Are you going to argue that CEOs and investment bankers do important work and have to be well-compensated to attract the best people? Well, you would think that the profession that spends all that time with our children would be thought of as important, too.

Obviously you've never been to Chicago where they sold off the Chicago Skyway because the government couldn't run it and maintain it. Under private management it is operating at a profit, getting desperately needed repairs and becoming a useful and used transportation alternative.

It's easy to run anything "at a profit" if you buy an income producing asset cheap and get to keep all the revenue.

And who owns the Skyway now? I know that the same type of Abu Dhabi sheiks who funnel money to Al Qaeda own 30% of Chicago's parking meters, and now you have to pay for parking on Sundays and holidays.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/exclusive-excerpt-america-on-sale-from-matt-taibbis-griftopia-20101018?page=1

accusations of what Ryan... (Below threshold)
Chico:

accusations of what Ryan and conservatives want to do

Ryan wants to do away with Medicare, replace it with vouchers (no details on the amount given) for private insurance companies, and cut the top marginal tax rate to 25%

Do you deny that?

.... Buraq Hussayn wants th... (Below threshold)

.... Buraq Hussayn wants the "experts" to "ration" ....

"Rationing experts:"

Death panels, by any other name without a difference.

Who but an envy-motivated, ... (Below threshold)

Who but an envy-motivated, hatred-engined and rage-driven simpleton sufferer of the Fascissocialist Psychosis doesn't get it that if a tool schreacher wants a movie star's or a successful investment banker's salary and bonuses, all he has to do is become a movie star -- or a successful investment banker?

Jim m, the reason Eisenhowe... (Below threshold)

Jim m, the reason Eisenhower created the federal highway system is because the free market couldn't provide the solution. If it could have, there would have been no need for the government to do it.

The same for Social Security- which by the way operates at 4% or so overhead, which is a model of efficiency unmatched in the private sector.

The free market isn't the ideal solution for everything. Old people who have worked hard all their lives shouldn't have to make i to their sunset years, and then lose their life savings or face pain, illness and death - so companies can make even more profit.

That's literally "your money or your life". It isn't necessary, so we don't have to do it when we can just control prices or do things another way.

The free market succeeds some times, and fails other times. just because some corporate ventures fail, doesn't mean all corporate ventures are doomed to failure. The same thing is true for governments and their ventures, or we wouldn't have them either.

Dismantel Medicare complete... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

Dismantel Medicare completely. Tomorrow.
The problem would be solved. A recent study showed that people will seek medical care no matter how big the deductible or copay they owe.
There is no reason to continue down this path any further, other than politicians buying votes with "free care".

"Jim m, the reason Eisenhow... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Jim m, the reason Eisenhower created the federal highway system is because the free market couldn't provide the solution. If it could have, there would have been no need for the government to do it."

Actually I accept that the federal highway system could not have been created by the private sector. I think the inherent creativity of the private sector could have conceived of it and even supported Eisenhower for it. However, private concerns cannot by law in of themselves assert eminent domain to the extent required to build such a massive project. Also, it is one thing to create it, it is another thing to maintain it. Isn't that what our argument is about on healthcare?

"The same for Social Security..."

Why would the private sector create Social Security?

"- which by the way operates at 4% or so overhead, which is a model of efficiency unmatched in the private sector."

Could you provide more information to back this up?

Why would the private se... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

Why would the private sector create Social Security?

If a private company created Social Security, its executives would be in jail. Bernie Madoff is nothing compared to the Social Security Administration.

It's a sign of just how much Kool-Aid leftists have drunk that they hold up Social Frikkin' Security as a model of efficiency. A program which is in the hole, which has been looted by generations of politicians both Republican and Democrat, a program which has a file full of IOUs sitting in a cabinet instead of the funds needed to keep it operational long-term. THIS is efficiency?

Ryan is a true bel... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
Ryan is a true believer of the Cult of Objectivism, worshiping Ayn Rand. To Ryan, the old, crippled and retarded are "parasites" sucking the wealth of "John Galt" and the "producers," so Ryan wants to cut the top marginal tax rate to 25%; to hell with crippled children, disabled vets, and orphans.

Chico I doubt you read Ran maybe you ant to read
“Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need,” by Planned Parenthood.
or maybe you were reading Charles Darwin.


Obama talks of controlling cost through IPAB which means 15 people will decided the faith of people. We have 300 million people they will institute policies based on certain factors and people will carry it out. There will likely not be a good appeal process for those discussions.

The only one who will get exemptions are the ones that have political friends or lots of Money. (Just like in Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes )
In UK patients who had early Alzheimer's there was pill that would delay the affects for up to 4 years. NHI decided that they did not want to incur the cost and would only allow the pill in final months. Robing people of life. In the UK hospital have deiced to let Old people die with dignity. In other words they are killing them off rather than treat them to save on cost.

Do you think as money get tight "High Risk" pregnancy will be allowed?
Abortions will become the norm for Children with genetic disease.

ACA cut 500 Billion out of Medicare

1000 Waivers had to be issued because to avoid the increase cost of health care caused by obeying the new ACA regulations.

Obamacare would have left 5 million seniors without insurance


Dismantel Medicare compl... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Dismantel Medicare completely. Tomorrow.
The problem would be solved. A recent study showed that people will seek medical care no matter how big the deductible or copay they owe.
There is no reason to continue down this path any further, other than politicians buying votes with "free care".

That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read here and not just because of the "dismantel."

I'd bet that with your skills, you won't be able to earn the income necessary to pay to have a broken finger set.

Yeah, all of that "free care" for freeloaders, let's let the maimed and the ill die in the street. If those old coots didn't make the cash when they were working, they'll just have to die early, won't they?

Or, we could admit 5 million medical doctors from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia and drive down physician's wages and medical costs that way, I guess.

The building of the ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:


The building of the Interstate was good because it was done for a purpose. Provide a method to transport for troops, provide evacuation route in case of foreign attack. In fact once could say it also help to provide postal roads.

In a similar way DARPA NET was create for the purpose of National Defense allowing for communications in the event of an attack on the USA.

In the case of the Internet it did not see real growth until governmental control was relaxed and commercial use was allowed. This is very important because DARPA and Internet had nodes at all the top Academic institutions we are talking the top brain trust but it was innovation in the private sector that allowed for the information rural road to the Information SuperHigh Way.

Medicare, Social Security does not work. They are going bankrupt.
They are therefor not efficient.

No private industry could do SS. that because by law they would need to account for the money and if they ran it like SS. They would be in Jail for so violation of every accounting law on the books.


Indeed I do not see any of ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Indeed I do not see any of the lefties coming to explain why everyone needs an exemption to obamacare. Nor do they seem to want to explain why the unions seem to be the first ones in line for said exemptions.

Why would the unions want to get out from under obamacare when they support everything he does so much? Couldn't be because the law sucks.

We have 300 million peop... (Below threshold)
Chico:

We have 300 million people they will institute policies based on certain factors and people will carry it out. There will likely not be a good appeal process for those discussions.

The only one who will get exemptions are the ones that have political friends or lots of Money.

Well, you really think the private insurance companies that Ryan wants to substitute are not going to control costs? People are already left to die all the time NOW when their medical insurance limits run out. Only those with "lots of money" will get full care, you won't even have the option of complaining to your Member of Congress or the press.

ChicoDontknow what... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

Dontknow what army you were in.

http://www.dfas.mil/dfas/militarymembers.html

E7 at 20 makes about 50k a year. and with todays retirement rules would make about $1400 a month returing at 20. (35% of base pay).

Starting teacher salary

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

Averages around $31,507 a year. And that data is 3 years old. That is for working 9 months a year.

Average salary is about 45k a year for working 9 months a year. Again that data is 3 years old.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

Oh and ChicoTeache... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Chico

Teachers have their 401ks and their pension which is more than 35% a year.

Again

Thanks for playing.

Well, you really t... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
Well, you really think the private insurance companies that Ryan wants to substitute are not going to control costs? People are already left to die all the time NOW when their medical insurance limits run out. Only those with "lots of money" will get full care, you won't even have the option of complaining to your Member of Congress or the press.

Why yes I do. Again private insurance average rejection rate is 3% and medicare rate is 6% Which means that Medicare is more likely to reject you that private insurance. If we are going to have further cost control that means medicare will raise there rejection rates.

Insurance companies do have an apply process and you can even go to court. When you have federal program you going to find it hard to appeal a decision. Also if you allow for free market different types of plans can be created allowing people to exercise choice.

Sorry, retired, looked at t... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Sorry, retired, looked at the same chart, applied the E-8 base pay rate by mistake.

Still, an E-7 base pay is $4143 over 18, plus $961 for BAH with dependents, plus $325 BAS = $65,148 per year, not counting any local COLA allowances.

I was thinking of the 50% of base pay, but isn't retired pay now based on a .025 x number of year basis and an average of highest three years pay, still 50% of the highest three years base pay at 20 years?

Again private insurance ... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Again private insurance average rejection rate is 3% and medicare rate is 6%

Did you consider that your private insurance rejection rate is taken from all ages, and your Medicare rejection rate is only taken from a population over 65, i.e. more likely to be afflicted with hopeless life-ending illnesses?

Yeah, if you're 90 years old, you're probably not getting that heart transplant.

70 Percent of "Tea Party Su... (Below threshold)
john:

70 Percent of "Tea Party Supporters" Oppose Medicare Cuts

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/19/poll-70-percent-of-tea-party-supporters-oppose-medicare-cuts.aspx

You guys are so on the wrong side of this issue. And "what's the alternative?" is not a good argument for supporting disaster.

If I don't like the trea... (Below threshold)
john:

If I don't like the treatement available at one doctor's office or clinic or hospital I mereley go down the street to the next one.

Sure, if Dr. Nick says he can save me $100 by treating me with a different drug, or performing a less extensive surgery, I'm sure I'll have sufficient medical knowledge and understanding to make that free market decision.

Here's some good reading for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/opinion/22krugman.html

Notice how some of the righ... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Notice how some of the righties have their heads so far up their ass all they can do is spew lies?

Woop,

non of what you quoted in any CBO report ... you are just making shit up on the fly ...

53. Posted by Jeff | April 23, 2011 10:27 AM

Thanks for the opportunity to once again post the facts - what the non-partisian CBO said about Paul Ryan's medicare voucher plan:

But because commercial insurers cost more to run than government plans, the Wisconsin Republican's proposal to privatize Medicare starting in 2022 would actually spark a dramatic increase in how much the nation spends on healthcare for the elderly, according to an independent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Even as the federal government cut its own spending, seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets — or more than $12,510 a year, the CBO estimates. Altogether, the total cost of insurance would be higher.

Ryan's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the CBO analysis. But the congressman has repeatedly said that applying what he calls "free-market principles" to the insurance market is the best way to control costs.

"We can drive innovation, productivity improvements and performance in healthcare," Ryan said Tuesday in a presentation to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Under Ryan's proposal, seniors and others on Medicare would begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, to offset the cost of buying a private insurance plan that would replace the federal government's Medicare plan.

Wealthier and healthier seniors would receive less, while poorer and sicker beneficiaries would get more.

This voucher system — or "premium support," as Ryan calls it — would give the typical 65-year-old American $8,000 annually to buy a health plan, about the same amount of money that analysts expect the Medicare program would spend on that senior in 2022 under the current program.

But the CBO report says the money won't be enough. The cost to buy private insurance, plus the projected out-of-pocket spending that the 65-year-old would have to pay for medical care in 2022, would total about $20,510 per year, according to the CBO, which both Republicans and Democrats rely on to independently evaluate the effects of proposed legislation.

That would leave the senior to pay the difference, an estimated $12,510.


-----------
Linked in comment # 1.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20110408

Also linked in #16 above as well.

The Paul Ryan Senior Citizen Death Camps will be well stocked with seniors who don't have an extra $1000 a month to pay for health care.

They'll suffer and die at the hands of Republicans.

Paul Ryan's plan must be stopped. The Republicans are out of control.

Harmon,In... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Harmon,

In the long run Rand had it right. The only long term driver of any effective economic system is enlightened self interest. Always has been, always will be. Wishing it were otherwise is futile.

Just to keep things clear, did you mean to write "rational self-interest"? Since you are a self-proclaimed Rand acolyte, I will assume that's what you meant, since she did not argue for "enlightened self interest" per se, which has some different meanings. In fact, enlightened self interest is in many ways the exact *opposite* of what she argued for.

That said, how do you argue that Randian self-interest is the "only long term driver of any efficient economic system"? What historical and economic evidence do you use to support this argument?

One last question: Do you think Rand's ideas conflict with the basic tenets of the New Testament? What surprises me is that there are so many supposed fans of Rand among the ranks of Christians. The two seem pretty antithetical to me. I have always found the appeal of Rand to Christians to be a little strange, especially considering her views about religion and Christianity in particular. Not to mention how her views about life and humanity contrast so sharply with those that Jesus supported.

Woop"Thanks for th... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Woop

"Thanks for the opportunity to once again post the facts "

If you posted facts it would be for the FIRST time and not ONCE again.

Why would the priv... (Below threshold)
Why would the private sector create Social Security?

DaveD, that's just it - the private sector WOULDN'T.

That's an example of something government can do, and has done well, that just isn't in the model of how the private sector and the free market impulse operate.

And here's some of the information on Social Security. It turns out that it is even *more* efficient in terms of administration than I thought - it's overhead is LESS THAN ONE Percent.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebriefs_ib145/

The strain on SS could be e... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

The strain on SS could be eased if there was no cap on how much income gets taxed for it.

If I make $106K and am taxed 10%, and someone who makes $212K is only taxed on their first $106K, does that not mean that I pay 10% of my income in SS taxes and the other guy pays 5%? And a guy who makes $530K pays 1%?

Let's hear some of you Fair Tax advocates explain the fairness of that.

Medicare and SS have benefits beyond the obvious ones. For instance, how many of you John Galts would want your aged parents, unable to support themselves and pay their own medical bills, moving into your houses and letting you take care of them? How much of your income, and your time, is freed up because you don't have to do that? What else do you spend your money on? How do you think the economy would do if everyone had to suddenly take in their elderly parents? What kind of strain would that put on your marriages? Your finances?

If you think the health insurance industry, the same ones who've been ass-raping you for at least 30 years, will look out for your mom and dad, you're naive or crazy or stupid or all three.

Social Security and Medicare changed the culture, dude. No more multigenerational households. And that's a good thing, allowing you some freedom and your parents some dignity.

If I spend 1.5 for every 1.... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

If I spend 1.5 for every 1.00 I get in and then spend more money on other things it does not matter hom much money you take in you will never have enough.


In fact it what we call throwing good money after

Older family members often provide value when living with people.
They are not always considered a worthless burden. Reason for that are most likely not apparent to you so no need to go into them.

My wife works in nursing home so the theft of money by the Goverment over a lifetime does not seem to provide a lavish lifestyle.

Bruce henryRef raisi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce henry
Ref raising limit on taxable SS income. Are you going to raise the amount they can then receive? Are you going to assure us that the money is not going to get spent on some bridge to nowhere or something to get nancy pelosi or Jim Boehner votes for reelection?

If you can assure me of the above than I say go for it.

jim x #78,Thanks for... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

jim x #78,
Thanks for the link on administrative costs. I am not so sure what the relevance of this information is. If someone took my money to administer/invest it for future returns and this person told me that they could do so at very low administrative costs but my account went bankrupt, I would not be impressed to put it politely.

"For instance, how many ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"For instance, how many of you John Galts would want your aged parents, unable to support themselves and pay their own medical bills, moving into your houses and letting you take care of them?"

I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion about this but that's exactly part of the problem government is creating/has created. People have lost all sense of responsibility for caring for their own because "the government will do it for them".

Oyster, it's not just about... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oyster, it's not just about caring for one's own. It's also about the economy. People can afford things like, for instance, jet skis, or wines, nowadays partly because they don't have to care for their elderly parents. They can take vacations because they have the time and the money (and the ability to "get away"), thus creating jobs in tourism and travel, road building and airlines. They can turn that spare room into a game room or den, or pay for their kids' educations, instead of spending their life savings paying Dad's hospital bills.

And the freedom and dignity this has brought to seniors has been priceless, too. I'm nearing retirement age myself, as are many of you guys - do you want to ask your grown children if you can pretty please move in with them when SS and Medicare are "privatized" (read "abandoned to the same thieving SOBs who've been ripping us off since the 80s")?

BHYou know had not... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

BH

You know had not considered that. That you greT Goverment for SS and Medicare. This has solved all the issues. Ok now all public sector workers since SS and Medicare provide all the dignity you need, please forget all of your retirement pay and health insurance for the greater good since you do not need it.

BHYou know had not... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

BH

You know had not considered that. That you greT Goverment for SS and Medicare. This has solved all the issues. Ok now all public sector workers since SS and Medicare provide all the dignity you need, please forget all of your retirement pay and health insurance for the greater good since you do not need it.

"That you gre T government ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"That you gre T government for SS and Medicare."

WTF does that even mean?

I can usually figure out your typo-infested, syntax-free, dyslexic comments by context, hcddbz, but this one escapes me. And ignores my point, near as I can tell, to boot.

BTW, many public-sector workers don't get SS, just their retirement benefits.

BH"BTW, many publi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BH

"BTW, many public-sector workers don't get SS, just their retirement benefits.

"

They dont PAY social security either. And lets see. 2% interest on SS while Congress spends the money on pet projects VS an much higher average in a pension plan which Congress cant touch (yet).

Hmmmm. The blue pill or the red pill.

ChicoREf 72.... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

REf 72.

BAH is dependant on area. Now lets look at some other factors.

teachers work 9 months a year.

SOldiers 12 months a year.

Soldiers deploy for a year away from family.
This is after going to either NTC or JRTC for a month.

Soldiers come back from deployment and a few months later have to pack family up and move. Possibly overseas.

Soldier gets to new unit and sometimes find out that "hey we are deploying next month" and spends another month away from family.

For leadership schools (required for promotion) soldiers will be gone from family for anywhere from a month to 6 months.

Soldiers are working 10-12 hours a day back in garrision and a lot of time on weekends.

meanwhile teachers work 9 months a year. Teachers dont move unless they want to. Teachers dont deploy. Teachers damn sure dont get seperated from family for 6 months unless they volunteer for it.

Meanwhile teachers make more for starting pay and can retire in 20 years as well.

Once again. Thanks for playing.

GHThe great govern... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

GH

The great government.
Bruce if SS and MC gave the great benefits that you state then no one needs anything but that. So teachers and Public sector Unions should give up all other retirement money and just live on the Utopian Plan you describe.

As far as teachers that not true on all states.

GH=BH... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

GH=BH

"People can afford things l... (Below threshold)
justthefactsmaam:

"People can afford things like, for instance, jet skis, or wines, nowadays partly because they don't have to care for their elderly parents." Sure. The poor and lower middle class are out there buying jet skis and wines because "the rich" are taking care of their elderly parents. Bwahahaha!

FICA rates are set to [try to] balance the payments into the system over time (based on salary income) with the rate of withdrawals from the system following retirement. Thus, it is largely a regressive (I would say fair) tax.

As far as income tax payments are concerned the "inequality" is startling. The leftrolls often bleat that "the rich" or higher wage earners "aren't paying their fair share." Well then, what's fair?

The 2008 IRS statistics are pretty illuminating. "The rich," in this case let's call them the top 1% of income tax filers, pay 40% of total tax receipts. Well, hey, that's only fair because they earn all the income! Not quite. Their reported income out of the 2008 total was 20%. "The rich" pay twice as much in relative taxes as they actually earn.

Now let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum. There you have a bloated population of people with "no skin in the game." They have no financial buy-in to the benefits of U.S. residence. Oh wait, I forget that there are no benefits - all societies and cultures are equal. No benefits here! How does this group feel about raising taxes? Sure! It's not my problem since I don't pay any anyway... plus I get more "benefits!"

If memory serves approximately 47% of all households paid zero or negative net income tax in FY 2009. The bottom 50% of tax filers contributed approximately 2% of total tax receipts in 2008. Again, let's ask how much of the total reported income they received. It's approximately 13% of the total reported income.

So who's being cheated? Who's paying more (or less) than their fair share? It seems to me it's pretty clear that "the rich" pay taxes disproportionate to their earnings. (Note capital gains are not relevant here since who except "the rich" pays capital gains taxes?) The top earners proportionally pay twice as much as they earn while the bottom 50% pay one-sixth of their total earnings.

The dictionary definitions of "fair" include "free of favoritism or bias," "just to all parties," "in accordance with relative merit or significance." Sounds like a call for tax "fairness" is an appeal for a Flat Tax, using the English dictionary, rather than the Marxist, definition of "fair."

So I guess we arrive at the State taking care of our parents. Oh, and who provides the State with money? Besides the Chinese, Japanese and Oil Sheiks (yes, U.S. revenues are fungible), the financiers are the productive (not civil servants and NGOs since their taxes are from salaries financed by, you guessed it, productive tax payers!) members of society who pay FICA taxes. Since this money is earned but not retained, these people are not able, among other things, to save the withheld amount for their retirements, save it for their children's education, or contribute it to the maintenance of their own aging parents. And, of course, it creates a disincentive to work, invest and plan for the future in the "tax eater" population.

Is this whole jury-rigged system - going bust as we watch - the best or most efficient way for a society to allocate "fairness?" Not from my perspective. BTW I (NOT a member of "the rich" class) saved a nice chunk of change for retirement (after putting my kids through university) and am completely debt free. Has the troll herd throwing stones here been responsible and done the same?

BH You are right m... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

BH

You are right my comments are often screwed up sometimes it because of the IPAD others. it because I do suffer from a learning disability. However I do not care because most of the time the meaning is clear and coherent.

People can not maintain a life style based on Social Security they need to contribute to pension, or retirement plans. Even medicare requires seniors to start buying insurance and pay into them to get plans. This is why everything you state sounds good in theory but is proven false in practice.

Time and Time again people are told, SS and MC are great and they cost so much less to operate. However, they are both growing broke. low administration cost are false indicator because the system allows for waste, fraud and abuse.

We hear it is safe bet because of the violative stock market. However we discount that SS and MC are funded by the dollar. A dollar whose buying power is lessen by the fact that the US has mounting debt and the world confidence in the currency is falling.

Example: The same amount of gold in in 1979 buys the same amount of oil today. We would like to blame speculation but it a fact that the Government under both Bush and BHO has wanted a week dollar. That week dollar contributes to the raise in health care , food , gas and durable goods.

We have had many bubbles,(Penny Stocks, Hedge Funds, Housing, Internet Stocks) and after they burst everyone says we should have done something. (Who wants to lays beats on school loans?)

SS and MC are the biggest bubbles and the longer we ignore it the worse the burst will be.
We cannot Tax enough of the economy to make either system as constituted economically viable. Therefore they both must be ended. There needs to a transition program to ensure order. If we do not do it the end result will be a utter and complete disaster.

Weirmar Republic 2020.

Math does not understand f feelings.


Thanks for the lin... (Below threshold)
Thanks for the link on administrative costs. I am not so sure what the relevance of this information is.

The relevance is to the argument that the Free Market is always more efficient than government, therefore privatization will always save taxpayers money.

The low overhead of social security's administrative costs basically proves that isn't necessarily the case.

I doubt there's a business in the world that can claim to be that efficient.

And as re Social Security's... (Below threshold)

And as re Social Security's status, it isn't bankrupt now, won't start losing more money than it takes until at least 2037, and all that needs to happen for it to stay solvent is to raise the payroll cap.

So if someone told me my money was in a business that was guaranteed to run at 100% for at least another 26 years, and needed only one minor tweak to be 100% for at least another 100 years after that, and would save all senior citizens including not only me, my parents, and then my children and all of their families and friends from starvation in their old age, I would be very impressed.

jim x #94,Fine Socia... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

jim x #94,
Fine Social Security has low administrative costs. If this is so important why are they bankrupt?

Jim X"And as re So... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"And as re Social Security's status, it isn't bankrupt now, won't start losing more money than it takes until at least 2037, and all that needs to happen for it to stay solvent is to raise the payroll cap."

Are you high are just being willfully Stupid?

a. Social security has no funds. it has a bunch of IOUs from the govt.

b. They are paying out more money NOW than they are taking in.

C. Congress has always used SS to make the budget deficit look smaller than it actually is.

Please show me the last time Congress balanced the budget without counting Social Security moeny in the kitty.

Jim X"And as re So... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"And as re Social Security's status, it isn't bankrupt now, won't start losing more money than it takes until at least 2037, and all that needs to happen for it to stay solvent is to raise the payroll cap."

Are you high are just being willfully Stupid?

a. Social security has no funds. it has a bunch of IOUs from the govt.

b. They are paying out more money NOW than they are taking in.

C. Congress has always used SS to make the budget deficit look smaller than it actually is.

Please show me the last time Congress balanced the budget without counting Social Security moeny in the kitty.

BTW Jim X we made a bet du... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Jim X we made a bet during the bp fiasco. I dont see any chance of my winning that bet so I will concede now that you were correct on that issue.

The True Cost of SS ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
The True Cost of SS
Implicit government obligations represent the lion’s share of government liabilities in the U.S. and many other countries. Yet these liabilities are rarely measured, let alone properly adjusted for their risk. This paper shows, by example, how modern asset pricing can be used to value implicit fiscal debts taking into account their risk properties. The example is the U.S. Social Security System’s net liability to working-age Americans. Marking this debt to market makes a big difference; its market value is 23 percent larger than the Social Security trustees’ valuation method suggests.


You get what you pay for
2004 CBO Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security

The United States has extensive experience adminis- tering different types of pension systems, including Social Security, employer-sponsored pension plans (including those of the federal government), and individual retire- ment accounts. The costs of those systems differ in part because they provide different levels of services and, to some degree, involve different sets of administrative tasks. For example, the Social Security system has relatively low administrative costs and does not incur transaction costs from investing in private assets, but it offers relatively few services compared with other systems.


Administrative Costs of... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
RM, I appreciate you consen... (Below threshold)

RM, I appreciate you consenting re: the bet made during the BP fiasco.

as re your points:

a) The money for Social Security's costs are paid via worker's incomes. Whatever the government does otherwise with those funds, that isn't the fault of Social Security.

b) Yes SS is paying out more than is coming in - due to the retiring Baby Boomer generation and other factors. And yet it can stay solvent until 2037 - that's impressive. And it also can remain solvent after that if, as I stated earlier, the income cap is raised.

c) I concede that's probably the case. I don't see how that's the fault of social security.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy